He never claimed to have created 250k jobs. He laid that out as a goal and promised to make it a priority of his administration. I believe he deserves credit for getting us going back in the right direction after years of Doyle job-killing.

If only you all held Obama to the same level of scrutiny considering his mismanagement has been a wet blanket covering the entire country.

I don't like the "unemployment rate" figure much, but it is the standard by which all are either lauded or criticized. Given the massive increase in people leaving the workforce and going on govt. assistance under Obama, you won't find much support on the Left for a more detailed analysis of unemployment. So, if Obama wants to point only to that number, I'm fine with him highlighting Wisconsin's number is better than the national average.

"Wisconsin's unemployment rate is 6.7%, less than the 7.3% national average."

"I don't like the "unemployment rate" figure much, but it is the standard by which all are either lauded or criticized."

"So, if Obama wants to point only to that number, I'm fine with him highlighting Wisconsin's number is better than the national average."

Wow, hard to defend against that level of thoughtful analysis. If I may, allow me the opportunity to point out one, tiny little insignificant detail you seem to have missed. That would be context. Walker took office in Jan 2011. At the time, the national unemployment rate was 9%. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110209.htm Wisconsin's unemployment rate was 7.4% http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/newsreleases/2011/unemployment/110309_january_state.pdf So, since Walker took office, the national unemployment rate has dropped 1.7%, while Wisconsin's has dropped 0.6%. The national rate has dropped at twice the rate Wisconsin's has during Walker's tenure. I'd also like to point out that since you made this statement, "I believe he deserves credit for getting us going back in the right direction after years of Doyle job-killing.", that under Doyle, Wisconsin was 1.6% below the national UE average, while Walker is only 0.6%. This indicates to me, that by your metrics, Wisconsin fared better under Doyle than under Walker, and is actually losing ground. So, what exactly is it that he deserves credit for? Subpar job numbers? Losing ground on the UE rate? Rampant corruption, cronyism, mendacity, and ineptitude? Please, I'm all ears? Dazzle us with some more of that Right Wing Talking Points for Dummies level of rhetoric. It's so very charming. "If only you all held Obama to the same level of scrutiny considering his mismanagement has been a wet blanket covering the entire country."

You of course have some examples to back up your claim right? This wouldn't be more hyperbole and rhetoric would it? This is rather rich coming from a person who seems to want to verbally fellate Scott Walker any chance he gets regardless of his record or the tangible harm his policies have produced. I assure you, Obama gets the same level of scrutiny, he just hasn't dicked his constituency as hard as Walker has. I'm sure you disagree though. After all, Walker had a bag lunch in those commercials and hung "open" signs on the freeway, so he must be just an average guy. As where Obama, he's, well...you know. Oh and one other thing, "wet blanket"? Really? That's the metaphor you chose? Very well, carry on then.

@Jeff...a 13 second snippet posted by a liberal operative is the best you've got?

@Shane_J...thank you for your polite response. Seriously, your intellectual prowess is only exceeded by your graceful approach to differing opinions. Only someone of your considerable skill could make the argument that lowering unemployment is a bad thing.

Oh, is that what it is you think you're doing? Offering a "differing opinion"? Because, it looked an awful lot to me like you were dropping a bunch of bullshit rhetoric, discredited talking points direct from Walker press releases, and logical fallacies. I could've taken the time to politely explain context to you. I could've taken the time to show how Team Scotty has a bit of a tendency to intentionally misconstrue reality. I could've figuratively held your hand and walked you through the numbers prior to, and since Walker's election. But who're we kidding. It wouldn't have mattered. We've seen your type before. You're a big hit at the Fountainhead club meetings with your uncontested talking points. You've read all about how to argue with liberals. The Limbaughs/Hannitys/Bellings of the world have you convinced of the righteousness of your plight. No amount of evidence will sway you from your path. No level of exposure to the truth will convince you Walker isn't a savior, and Obama isn't an illegitimate, Kenyan Muslim. No amount of appealing to logic and reason will turn you away from your confirmation bias. So why bother trying? It, and you, simply aren't worth my time beyond entertainment. I'll point out how and why you're wrong, mock you, and then laugh at you futile attempts to show us how wrong we are. No matter what happens though, you won't give up your schoolgirl-esque crush on Walker. It doesn't matter what he does. No amount of corruption that's uncovered, no amount of obvious cronyism, no number of failed and broken promises will dissuade you. I've come to realize Walkerbots are a lot like Beliebers. No matter what dipshittery their crush gets caught doing, they stand by him. No matter what. No matter how badly they get burned. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their hero is not only horrible at what they do, but horrible personally, they're still going to buy their bill of goods. The only difference is that in a few years, Beliebers will realize how stupid they were and grow out of it. With Walkerbots though, the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents that. Oh, and for the record, I happen to think that my intellectual prowess actually exceeds my graceful approach to differing opinions. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

" Only someone of your considerable skill could make the argument that lowering unemployment is a bad thing."

Only someone with your considerable level of desperation would construct such a straw man. Please illustrate where I made such a claim. I'm fairly certain that I was responding to your claim that the current unemployment rate would indicate that Walker deserves some credit after all the years of Doyle job-killing[sic]. I merely pointed out that by your own metric, Doyle was actually faring better than Walker. See, this is what I was talking about above. Instead of saying, "Hey, thanks for the context, perhaps I should reevaluate my belief", you instead opted for the straw man fallacy while ignoring the correction. Why then should I respect your opinion if it isn't subject to change based on inconsequential things like facts, history, and reality?